Tuesday, October 09, 2012

The liars get exposed (Benghazi-gate)

On Sept. 11, the day he was killed in what we now know was an
assassination deliberately planned to coincide with the terrorist
attacks 11 years earlier, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens approved a
cable to the State Department warning about the deteriorating security
situation in the Libyan city of Benghazi. The dispatch noted that the
leaders of two militias, some of whose members were tasked with
protecting the American consulate, had threatened to quit, in protest of
alleged American support for a prime ministerial candidate they did not
like.
Two things stand out about the cable, obtained exclusively by The Daily
Beast’s Eli Lake. The first is that there is no mention of the
14-minute online video, “Innocence of Muslims,” which the administration
— in league with a global army of apologists for religiously-inspired
violence — blamed for a tide of anti-American protests that swept Muslim
countries last month. The second curiosity is that the U.S. was
subcontracting the security of its diplomats and property to Libyan
militias.

On Wednesday, a State Department official is expected to tell
Congress he warned his bosses that security in Libya was getting worse
before that attack on the U.S. Consulate. Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson
tells us his warnings include a log of 230 security incidents that
occurred over a year.Eric Nordstrom is expected to testify that his request for more troops and officers was turned down.

The State Department withdrew U.S. security personnel from Libya just
weeks before suspected Islamist extremists killed the U.S. ambassador
there despite warnings from the U.S. Embassy that the Libyan government
couldn’t protect foreign diplomats, according to an email released
Tuesday.The State Department rejected requests to extend the
tours of U.S. diplomatic and military security personnel in order to
“normalize” embassy operations according to “an artificial timetable,”
Eric Nordstrom, the embassy’s former security chief, wrote in an Oct. 1
email.The claim is certain to fuel a growing election year furor
over security at the U.S. consulate in the eastern Libyan city of
Benghazi at the time of the Sept. 11 assault that killed Ambassador
Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

Also scheduled to testify is Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a former Army
Green Beret who was part of a special embassy security team in Libya.
Wood told CBS News that he met daily with Stevens and that the
ambassador was worried about potential risks in the postwar turmoil.Wood
said he and Stevens raised the issue with Washington but that there was
"pressure to reduce the number of security people there."Wood said his 16 team members and a separate six-member State Department security force were withdrawn from Tripoli in August."I
felt like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers," Wood
said. "There was concern among the entire embassy staff.... We felt we
needed more, not less."

The White House lied to the American people. This really is unforgivable. And they sent the attack dogs after Mitt Romney for daring to criticize what happened?

That's ridiculous. Now, instead of providing answers, the administration thinks they can play dumb until after the election.

4 Americans are dead and that's on the White House. It's also on the White House that they lied about what happened. They lied repeatedly to the American people. And that's Susan Rice and it's Victoria Nuland and it's the whole stinky, ugly crew. Shame on them.

October
9, 2012. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, someone explain to
Barack Obama that campaign material cannot be posted at a government
site (yes, that includes the White House) unless your intent is to
violate the Hatch Act, Barack talks Iraq (briefly), Nouri gets weapons
from Russia, Jill Stein's campaign for president is looking very weak,
and more.

Yesterday we noted Mitt Romney, GOP
presidential candidate, delivered a foreign relations speech. Today US
President Barack Obama did. If you're a dope -- like Michael A. Memoli of the Los Angeles Times
-- you just type it up. I'm sorry, is it only Republicans that have to
be fact checked? Barack's been president for nearly four years, at
what point does he stop being coddled?

And if
you can figure out the lunatic ravings of his campaign site, more power
to you. I couldn't. Where's the speech? I called a friend with the
campaign and he told me, "Why it's at the White House."

At the White House. How many times is this adminitsration going to break the Hatch Act?

The
White House is not a campaign site. I went over the legalities with
Team Barack when they had their Twitter Feed issues (they were breaking
the Hatch Act, they quickly changed their policies to be in compliance
with the Hatch Act). I don't feel like being nice today. Team Barack
has a ton of lawyers, at least one of them should know the damn law.
Campaign event speeches belong at the campaign website. They are not
official White House business. They cannot be posted at the White
House. This is no different than what got Al Gore in trouble -- the
phone calls -- only now we're talking online.

If
you're not grasping it, White House staff posts to the White House
web. Right away, you've got a Hatch Act issue if White House staff is
posting campaign event material to the White House website. I cannot
believe how stupid Team Barack is. And I'll put my hand on the Bible
and say "stupid" and not "criminal." It took two hours to explain the
basics of how their Twitter feed was in violation of the Hatch Act. I
don't have that kind of time, especially for a candidate I'm not
campaigning for, donating to, or voting for. I expect the President of
the United States to comply with the law. That is not an outlandish
expectation. If Team Obama's attorneys are this stupid, that not only
suggests the need for new attorneys, it goes to the man they're working
for.

White House staff has now posted campaign
event material to a government website. Forget that it's the White
House, for a moment, to a government website. They are not in
compliance with the Hatch Act and if we grown ups in the press -- which
we so obviously do not (excepting the few like Jake Tapper) -- they'd be
running with this story. We'd have headlines "Potential Hatch Act
Violation by White House" or "Another Potential Hatch Act Violation by
White House." But we have meek little general studies majors who never
learned one damn thing about one damn thing and we're all victimized by their stupidity.

And
today's speech where he remembers Iraq all the sudden? It's got be the
one damn speech they didn't break the Hatch Act by posting.

We
can't get the text of the speech (supposedly it'll be faxed to me
shortly, I don't have the time to wait) so we have to depend upon the
accuracy of a dunce, a village idiot, by the name of Michael Memoli.
Fate has saved us. The fax just came in.

Ohio State University in Columbus was where Barack spoke this evening.

On Iraq:

I
want to use the money we're saving from ending the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and I want to use that to pay down our deficit, but also to
put people back to work rebuilding our roads and bridges and our
schools all across America. And Governor Romney said it was "tragic" to
end the war in Iraq. I disagree. I think bringing out troops home to
their families was the right thing to do. If he'd gotten his way, those
troops would still be there. In a speech yesterday, he doubled down on
that belief. He said ending that war was a mistake. After nine years
of war, more than $1 trillion in spending, extraordinary sacrficies by
our men and women in uniform and their families, he said we should still
have troops on the ground in Iraq. Ohio, you can't turn a page on the
failed policies of the past if you're promising to repeat them. We
cannot afford to go back to a foreign policy that gets us into wars
with no plan to end them.

That's
Barack on Iraq in Ohio today. It was not a major foreign policy
speech. It was actually very disappointing to read because there was no
effort to say much of anything. Did Barack think his college audience
couldn't handle much more than simplistic statements. I'm not talking
him presenting a new map for foreign relations, I'm talking about some
uplifting phrases. This is the dullest speech in the world. Maybe
attorneys aren't Team Obama's only problem?

Reading Michael A. Memoli's nonsense,
it becomes clear that Barack can say whatever he wants and will not be
fact checked. So let's do the work that the Los Angeles Times should
have expected Memoli to do.

Barack:
I want to use the money we're saving from ending the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and I want to use that to pay down our deficit, but also to
put people back to work rebuilding our roads and bridges and our
schools all across America.

I would applaud you but you stated that repeatedly in your campaign speeches in 2008 -- and in your victory speech on election night (link is NPR, text and audio).
So you had four years and the US roads and bridges remain in need of
repair. You refused to do a public works project, the way FDR did to
provide jobs, but we're supposed to believe you that this time you
really, really mean it.

Barack: And Governor Romney said it was "tragic" to end the war in Iraq.

Making
the case that Romney lacks foreign policy chops, Obama twisted Romney's
words, claiming, "My opponent said it was 'tragic' to end the war in
Iraq."

But that's not quite what Romney
said. He was speaking of the speed with which Obama was withdrawing
troops, not to ending the war in general.

During
a veterans roundtable in South Carolina on Nov. 11, 2011, Romney
criticized Obama's plan to remove troops from Iraq by the end of that
year. Here's the fuller context of his comments, as reported by the New York Times:

Romney,
Nov. 11, 2011: It is my view that the withdrawal of all of our troops
from Iraq by the end of this year is an enormous mistake, and failing by
the Obama administration. The precipitous withdrawal is unfortunate —
it's more than unfortunate, I think it's tragic. It puts at risk many of
the victories that were hard won by the men and women who served there.

A month earlier, when Obama formally announced the withdrawal of tens of thousands of troops from Iraq by year's end, Romney released a similar statement:

Romney,
Oct. 21, 2011: President Obama's astonishing failure to secure an
orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories
that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American
men and women. The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the
result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in
negotiations with the Iraqi government. The American people deserve to
hear the recommendations that were made by our military commanders in
Iraq.

In December, Romney argued
that Obama "has pulled our troops out in a precipitous way" and that he
ought to have left a residual force of "10-, 20-, 30-thousand
personnel there to help transition to the Iraqi's own military
capabilities."

Criticizing the
"precipitous" pace of withdrawal and the president's failure to leave a
residual force in Iraq is a far cry from calling the end of the war in
Iraq "tragic."

"Obama twisted Romney's words" -- yes and continues to do so after being called out on it which makes it a lie.

Barack: I disagree. I think bringing out troops home to their families was the right thing to do.

If
you had actually done that, Barack. I could probably vote in this
presidential election and could vote for you. If you had done that, if
you had brought the troops home from Iraq. I probably could ignore your
assaults on whistle blowers, find some way to justify your persecution
of Bradley Manning and other things. Because Iraq really matters to
me. So I could probably find a way to lie to myself, write you a big
check, go out and campaign for you and vote for you. I might hold my
nose, but I probably could have if you'd just done that.

Kuwait
is especially keen to maintain a significant U.S. military presence. In
fact, the Kuwaiti public perception of the United States is more
positive than any other Gulf country, dating back to the U.S.-led
liberation of Kuwait in 1991. Kuwait paid over $16 billion to compensate
coalition efforts for costs incurred during Desert Shield and Desert
Storm and $350 million for Operation Southern Watch. In 2004, the Bush
Administration designated Kuwait a major non-NATO ally.

*
U.S. Military Presence: A U.S.-Kuwaiti defense agreement signed in 1991
and extended in 2001 provides a framework that guards the legal rights
of American troops and promotes military cooperation. When U.S. troops
departed Iraq at the end of 2011, Kuwait welcomed a more enduring
American footprint. Currently, there are approximately 15,000 U.S.
forces in Kuwait, but the number is likely to decrease to 13,500.
Kuwaiti bases such as Camp Arifjan, Ali Al Salem Air Field, and Camp
Buehring offer the United States major staging hubs, training rages, and
logistical support for regional operations. U.S. forces also operate
Patriot missile batteries in Kuwait, which are vital to theater missile
defense.

The report
goes on to recommend that the troops stay there for years. (Individuals
would rotate out but approximately 13,000 US troops would be stationed
in Kuwait for years.)

In
addition, Special Ops remained in Iraq. They never left. 'Trainers'
remained in Iraq (also US military). And not only did Special Ops
remain but Barack just sent more Special Ops into Iraq. Tim Arango (New York Times) reported September 26th,
"At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a
unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq
to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."

Barack: If he'd gotten his way, those troops would still be there.

Barack, "these troops" still are there. And if Barack had gotten his way, even more would be there. As Yaroslav Trofimov and Nathan Hodge (Wall St. Journal) remind
today, "In Iraq, Washington's ability to influence the government in
Baghdad was greatly diminished by December's pullout of American forces,
ordered by President Barack Obama after Baghdad refused to accept the
U.S. demand that remaining U.S. troops be immune from Iraqi
jurisdiction." I would love to hear Senator John McCain respond to
this speech by Barack. In November of last year, we defended Barack
here from McCain's charge that Barack was misleading (lying) and
intended to tank negotiations between the US and Iraq for US troops to
remain in Iraq in large numbers. And we even brought it up in the 2011 year-in-review:

Another
reason offered for the refusal by the Iraqis to extend the SOFA or come
to a new agreement came from US Senator John McCain. McAin's hypothesis
is that Barack purposely tanked the talks (see the November 15th Iraq snapshot and Kat's report on the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing).
Were that true (I personally don't buy that proposal), then the
administration should be paraded before Congress due to the fact that,
when the country was in three overseas wars (Iraq, Afghanistan and
Libya), plus drone attacks of Pakistan and in an ever increasing
economic mess, for Barack to have wasted some of the administration's
most valuable players on negotiations that were intended to fail would
be criminal negligence. Far more likely is that, as with his attempts to
land the 2016 Olympics (for Chicago) which included traveling all the way to Denmark only to see the Committee rebuff him and select Rio instead. Barack's embarrassing failure was lampooned in Isaiah's 2009 "Dream Team Take Two" which found the players (Barack, Michelle, Oprah and Valerie Jarrett) attempting to bring the Mary Kay Convention to Chicago.

I
think McCain would look at that single sentence ("If he'd gotten his
way, those troops would still be there.") and say that Barack can't
have it both ways -- either he would have kept troops there but couldn't
get a treaty passed or else he intentionally tanked a treaty because he
didn't want troops there.

In addition, Tim Arango (New York Times) reported September 26th,
"Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could
result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on
training missions." Troops would still be there? But it's the White
House right now that's negotiating to send more troops back into Iraq.

Barack: In a speech yesterday, he doubled down on that belief. He said ending that war was a mistake.

No, he didn't. He called out the way the White House did the drawdown (what Romney termed a withdrawal).

Mitt
Romney: In Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded
by rising violence, a resurgent Al-Qaeda, the weakening of democracy in
Baghdad, and the rising influence of Iran. And yet, America's ability to
influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the
abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence. The President tried --
and failed -- to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that would
have better secured our gains.

He
is not saying ending the war was a mistake, he's saying the way Barack
ended it was a mistake. Barack's distorted and twisted Romney's words
-- possibly because he knows the media is loathe to talk about the
realities of Iraq today.

Barack:
After nine years of war, more than $1 trillion in spending,
extraordinary sacrficies by our men and women in uniform and their
families, he said we should still have troops on the ground in Iraq.

He
didn't say that yesterday. I wouldn't be surprised if that was
Romney's position but he didn't state that yesterday. But if Barack
doesn't believe the US should still have troops on the ground in Iraq,
(a) why didn't he withdraw all US troops at the end of 2011 and (b) why
is he attempting to negotiate a treaty to send even more US troops back
into Iraq?

It's amazing how the Los Angeles Times refuses to hold Barack accountable until you realize that the Los Angeles Times
responded to the Iraq War most infamously by dropping their columnist
who was adamantly opposed to it -- Robert Scheer who went on to create Truthdig. So in other words, the Los Angeles Times lied in real time and pimped the war. They didn't whore as bad as the New York Times
-- but outside of a cathouse, who could? So now the LA paper
continues to lie. It lied to get US troops into Iraq, it lies to keep
US troops in Iraq.

[Romney:]
In Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising
violence, a resurgent Al-Qaeda, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad,
and the rising influence of Iran.

The
press reports that al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is responsible for the rise
in violence. I tend to be more skeptical of that claim and see this as
less about terrorism and more as a fight for who will control the
country. In my view, the refusal to share power and bring in Sunnis is
creating the same oppression that the Shi'ites lived under for decades.
But Mitt Romney expressed statements perfectly in keeping with the
American press reports (and Salon's not challenged those reports or even
been skeptical of them). From the right and the left, you read about
Iran and Iraq's increased relationship. From the right, it's Barack's
fault for what he's done in the last four years (his fault that Iran and
Iraq are so much closer), from the left it's Bush's fault for starting
the illegal war. Regardless of who gets blamed, the reality is that
Iraq and Iran are much closer than they were before 2003.

Through Monday, Iraq Body Count counts 51 people killed in violence in Iraq since the start of the month. Today All Iraq News reports
that an official with the Ministry of Interior was targeted in a
Baghdad assassination attempt but survived while his driver died in the
attack and a Tal Afar roadside bombing has claimed two lives. Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) adds
the Tal Afar victims were two brothers who are members of the PUK
political party (Jalal Talabani's party) and reports 1 judge (Abbas
al-Abadi) was shot dead in front of his Mosul home, a Mosul roadside
bombing left "a deputy police chief and a policeman" injured, a Sulaiman
Bek roadside bombing injured five members of one family and 2 Abu
Ghraib roadside bombings resulted in 1 military officer and 1 Iraqi
soldier being killed with two more soldiers left injured. Press TV reports
1 "bodyguard of a lawmaker was killed in an ambush near the town of
Mussayeb" and a Kirkuk car bombing claimed the lives of 2 police
officers with four more injured.

Al Mada notes
State of Law has declared that Iraq is not attempting to form an
alliance with Iran and Russia.. That Nouri al-Maliki's political slate
felt the need to make that statement is more interesting than the
statement itself. Nouri, of course, is in Russia. All Iraq News reports he's met with Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medevdev to discuss trade, economic and military issues. UPI explains,
"Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki reportedly flew to Moscow Monday
for talks on defense and trade amid signs Russia is trying to make
inroads in on Iraq's multibillion-dollar rearmament program, which has
been dominated by the United States.The word is that Baghdad, nearly a
year after the U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq, Maliki will sign a $5
billion air-defense contract with Moscow." Hurriyet Daily News observes, "If the deal takes place, Iraq will be among five largest importers of Russian arms, according to Pravda." AFP reports the deal did take place but it was a "$4.2 billion" arms deal -- 30
Mi-28 attack helicopters and 42 Pansir-S1 surface-to-air missile
systems." And the two sides continue to explore additional weapons. Alberto Riva (International Business Times) explains:

It's
a significant deal not only because of its size, but because it gives
Iraq advanced capabilities it could use in the possible conflicts
brewing in the region. The Mi-28 helicopter gunships would be deadly in
any confrontation with Kurdish independence fighters over the status of
Iraqi Kurdistan and its rich oil fields; the Pantsir missiles would be a
strong deterrent against the air forces of Iraq's Sunni Muslim
neighbors and potential enemies. That's an important factor now that
Iraq has a Shiite-dominated government, and that those Sunni neighbors –
Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait -- all have
powerful air forces, recently replenished with hundreds of American and
European fighter-bombers of the latest generation.

And this isn't the end of Nouri's shopping spree. AFP reports,
"Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki will head a government delegation
to the Czech Republic on Thursday, with a potential arms deal involving
several dozen Czech-made subsonic jet fighters likely to figure on the
agenda." Alsumaria notes
that Nouri spoke in Russia today of unnamed forces wanting to topple
Middle East regimes and used Syria as an example. That will be
interpreted as a hint that he was referring to the United States
government. The snub comes as Iraqi diplomats in DC,Dar Addustour notes, work to garner US support to get Iraq removed from Chapter VII by the United Nations.

While Nouri was out of the country, the Council of Ministers was 'hard at work.' Alsumaria reports Nouri's Council of Ministers announced a decision today to kill wild pigs. They fear they might be spreading disease.

That passes for a functional government in Iraq. In addition, Khalid al-Ansary (Bloomberg News) reports,
"Iraq's Cabinet agreed to double the capital of state-owned Trade Bank
of Iraq to one trillion dinars ($858 million), State Minister Ali
al-Dabbagh, the official government spokesperson said in an e-mailed
statement today."

In the US, US
House Rep Jeff Miller is the Chair of the House Committee on Veterans
Affairs, Senator Richard Burr is the Ranking Member on the Senate
Veterans Affairs Committee. The House Veterans Affairs Committee notes:

WASHINGTON,
D.C. -- Friday, Rep. Jeff Miller, Chairman of the House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, and Senator Richard Burr, Ranking Member of the
Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, called on VA Secretary Eric Shinseki
to remove VA Chief of Staff, John Gingrich from his position due to his
involvement in VA's conference scandal. To read Chairman Miller's and
Ranking Member Burr's letter to the Secretary, click here.

I
normally would include a Jill Stein press release. Stein is the Green
Party's presidential candidate. But it was just read to me and I said,
"Don't copy and paste it in." I have no idea why you need a "Paul Ryan"
at your protest. But if you -- and maybe you do, then you'd need a
Biden as well. Can't have Ryan without Joe.

I
think Jill Stein is a sincere candidate. But I'm not whoring. And the
Green Party has whored since 2000 so people are automatically
suspicious. That's why this community got behind Ralph Nader and not
the Green Party nominee (it was Cynthia McKinney but the community had
already gotten behind Ralph) (the community had gotten behind him, I've
not stated who I voted for -- I've stated I didn't vote for Barack and
I'd long noted I wouldn't vote for McCain).

Jill Stein needs to be aware of this pitfalls if she's not already. Her campaign was called out in Third's "Roundtable."

Jim (Con't): Let's kick things off with the presidential election. Last week, we did various roundtables and Dona moderated "Campaign roundtable" and noted they'd run out of time before they could really discuss Jill Stein's
campaign. Jill Stein is the Green Party presidential candidate. So
let's start with Dr. Jill and then move to the debate last Wednesday.
Ann and Jess are Greens, they're supporting Jill Stein. Everyone
participating in this roundtable is except for Ava and C.I. who have
announced that they don't intend to vote in the presidential election.
If they change their mind, they say they'll note it. But Ann and
Jess, why don't you kick things off on Dr. Stein.

Ann:
It's October 7th and the Stein campaign hasn't updated their website
since October 3rd. I find that disturbing. Jess and I were talking
earlier and both agreed we'd note disturbances. You're a third party
candidate and the election is about four weeks away. You need to be
updating daily and you certainly cannot afford to go four days without
updating. Gary Johnson
is also a third party candidate, the presidential candidate for the
Libertarian Party. If you go to his website, not only do you find out
he's raised a half-million dollars, you also see that he last updated
Friday, October 5th. It's one thing to take the weekend off -- which I
don't think is ever smart for a third party candidate -- it's another
to allow four days to pass with nothing new from your campaign. I also
notice that the campaign no longer allows people to leave comments like
they did last month. So there's nothing new and there's not even new
comments you can read. I'd say that's ridiculous.

Jess:
Yeah and on the disturbing and ridiculous, they've got something on the
main page that shouldn't have made it there to begin with. Maybe if
they'd updated throughout the week it would be gone.

Jess
(Con't): You'll note that Isaiah makes fun of Mitt Romney for being
scared also. But, hey, look, he also makes fun of Barack for the same
thing. Yeah, it's both of them.

C.I.: Actually, it is Barack. But go on.

Jess:
I'd agree with that too. But the point is if you're going to protest,
for example, the NFL tomorrow, you don't go stalk the New England
Patriots. They are number two, as of last year's superbowl. You go
with the biggest and the baddest, the New York Giants, who won the
Superbowl last year. If you only protest the Patriots to protest the
NFL, you look like a little bitch. If you're stupid enough to wear
costumes nd your men and you have women in cheesecake poses, the only
real word for you is one we can't use here so I'll just repeat:
bitches. You don't look strong, you look incredibly pathetic. And by
posting that crap, Jill Stein's campaign looks incredibly pathetic.

Ann: I would agree.

Jess
and Ann are Greens. Their feelings are not mysterious or strange. The
Green Party in 2004 made a laughingstock of itself. In 2008, Green
Party members rushed foward to urge people to vote for Barack. These
things do not help the Green Party.

I believe
Dr. Jill Stein is a sincere candidate. But she's up against an opinion
that she isn't -- and that would be true of any president from that
party -- because the Green Party has refused to act like a political
party for the previous two presidential races. It's instead acted like
it's the kid sister of the Democratic Party.

If,
with all the administration currently does, Jill Stein and her campaign
can't do more than ridicule Paul Ryan (Mitt Romney's running mate),
then that makes people wonder, "Is this another fake ass campaign from
the Green Party?"

We didn't include the b.s.
that Ann and Jess rightly objected to, we didn't run that press
release. We're not interested in this one. If Jill's campaign is just
about 'Oh, Mitt and Paul are awful!,' then we've got more important
things to focus on then faux candidates and their pretend efforts to run
for office.

And it is Barack, by the way, as I
said in the roundtable. Barack can waive Jill Stein and Gary Johnson
and anyone else into the debate. George H.W. Bush waived H. Ross Perot
into the 1992 debates. Why? He thought Perot would 'steal' votes from
Clinton. (No vote that a voter awards to a candidate is stolen.) Bill
Clinton was for Perot being included as well. In fact, he was for it
before Bush. But when Bush, the sitting President of the United States,
was for it, the contract with the corporation no longer mattered (the
debates are put on by the two parties -- Democrat and Republican -- and
they make long lists of what's possible and what's not, read Ava and my "TV: Jim Lehrer, notch below child molester"
if this is news to you). But if the goal is to get into the debates,
and that's what the press release the Stein campaign has put out says,
then you need to target the sitting president because that's the only
one with the power. Mitt Romney could demand or oppose the inclusion of
third party candidates. It wouldn't matter. But if a sitting
president demands it (as George H.W. Bush did and as Barack can do now),
it will happen -- such is the power of the presidency.